- From: Qebui Nehebkau <qebui.nehebkau+whatwg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 00:52:26 +0000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group Mailing List <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Evan Stade <estade@chromium.org>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > I think the arguments you've presented so far suggest "address-levelN" for > N=1..4, with 4=region and 3=locality, is probably the simplest thing to > do. I was hoping there might be other people with opinions, to give us > different perspectives on this, but it seems nobody else cares. :-( Since you asked, I think the whole endeavour (of trying to tokenise an address) is pointless and should be abandoned outright. :) Short of my ideal of *only* offering the full address (as used on a label) as an opaque string, I think it would be most reasonable to consider the 'locality' field itself to be a fully-specified opaque string, including whatever information is necessary to completely identify the location from the region level (such as the prefecture and district), rather than a single level. Failing all that, I would at least prefer for the fields to have names instead of abstract numbering, because people are likely to be confused about the order, no matter which end is the 'widest'. It also seems more intuitive, to me, for the 'locality', as, after all, 'local', to be the most specific level.
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2014 00:53:13 UTC